Alistair Darling: Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right: what is striking about the forum in Glasgow is the common interest, between not only public bodies and others with a long history of trying to help people get into work, but also private sector companies, because they realise that it is in their interest that we expand the work force so that we have more people available for work. It is worth bearing in mind what has happened over the past few years with the new deal: in Glasgow, nearly 5,500 lone parents, 1,400 adults, more than 25,000 people with disability and 1,600 people aged over 50 have moved from welfare into work thanks to the new deal. Many other measures can be taken, but there is a big difference between 10 or 15 years ago, when the then Government either ignored unemployment or thought it an inevitable fact of life, and the situation today where there is universal determination to get as many people into work as possible.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. The new deal will remain the foundation of everything we do to help people into work. It is worth bearing in mind that employment in Scotland has risen by 174,000 people since 1997. Many of us in Scotland remember what happened in the 1980s and the early 1990s when hundreds and thousands of people were condemned to unemployment, we had a second generation of people growing up who had no experience of work and there was precious little help from the then Government. As for the Liberals, my hon. Friend is right; they are in favour of the new deal, but they were actually against the means of funding it, which is a typical Liberal attitude towards such matters.

Alistair Darling: Of course, thanks to the money that we have made available to Scotland, because of the economic prosperity that has been built up over the past seven years, there are more policemen in Scotland. There are also more teachers, nurses and doctors. So as far as public services are concerned, we can provide that.
	In relation to identity cards, the fact that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me comes as no surprise. It is hardly news that it may be necessary to have an ID card to access benefits, for example, in Scotland in future. Does he say that there is anything wrong with asking someone on benefits to identify themselves? The Scottish Executive have made it clear, however, that they do not propose to require the use of ID cards for accessing the NHS in Scotland. That is an entirely proper decision for them to take. However, I repeat the point: what is wrong in principle with people identifying themselves so that others are satisfied they are entitled to use services? I defy him to answer that. I see nothing wrong with that in principle and cannot for the life of me understand why he takes such a ridiculous attitude.

Angus Robertson: What discussions he has held with Ministerial colleagues on the outcome of the EU Fisheries Council in December.

Christopher Leslie: My Department continually reviews and monitors private finance initiative procedures for new court-building projects, including plans for Essex magistrates courts, to secure the most effective and efficient contracts on behalf of the taxpayer.

Phil Woolas: I recall that when I was the Committee's Whip it was difficult to persuade many Members to attend, but it has held useful meetings on a number of matters—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am about to answer. It has held meetings on a number of matters, including the important Northern Way economic strategy and planning policy—the regional policy raised by the hon. Gentleman's own party.
	I repeat that this is a matter for Members in the English regions. If there is support for the idea of debating issues in the Standing Committee, that is open to the Committee.

Alun Michael: I urge my right hon. Friend not to give in to any temptation to believe that there are two voices coming from Government, nor to indulge in conspiracy theories. I am happy to give him all the assurances that he requests on these matters. First, he asked what discussions had taken place. I have confirmed precisely what the chairman of the Countryside Alliance said: that there have been discussions between lawyers about what will happen when a case comes before the court. It is as simple as that. No other discussions are of any relevance whatever.
	Secondly, my right hon. Friend asked about what the Hunting Act 2004 states. As I have made clear, it states that commencement will be three months after Royal Assent. It is not for me to say what the court will make of that. I simply do not know. Neither am I a lawyer nor do I seek to look into the court's mind. The court must do its work, just as this House did when it decided on the legislation.
	Finally, I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government do not have two voices on this matter. There is only one voice. I have articulated the Government's position, which has been consistent throughout. I am very pleased that many hon. Members who worked passionately to bring the Hunting Act into law believe that my approach, which I articulated in December, is right. We want the law to be clear. It is the Countryside Alliance, not the Government, that is attempting to cause confusion, and we want that confusion to be set aside authoritatively by the court. After that, let everyone obey the law of the land.

Alun Michael: We do not accept that there is a case for compensation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that on a number of occasions. I have made my position clear. We do not believe that with commencement on 18 February, there is any justification for compensation. Our view is consistent with the view that was taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Incidentally, people often say that the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that there were flaws in the Act. It did not, and that has been made clear in the House. Nevertheless, people attempt to spread confusion about that, so I am glad to make it absolutely clear. We recognised that some people's employment would be affected, so the later date for commencement—we proposed July 2006, and the House agreed with that proposition—would have given everyone time to change their activities, take up drag hunting and consider other ways of ensuring that employment could continue through other equine activities, and so on, but the case against compensation remains strong, even with the date of 18 February. That is not the issue today. The question of a challenge is nothing to do with human rights or compensation. It is to do with whether the Parliament Act 1949 is valid. We believe it is. We believe that the Hunting Act 2004 is valid and sound, and we will say that clearly in the courts, as we have said in the House. We are being entirely consistent, as always.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems to be the practice that whenever the Minister gets up to speak, certain hon. Members try to speak him down and shout across the Chamber. I will not tolerate that.

Tony Wright: On a previous occasion I suggested to the Minister that whether the Act was good or bad for foxes, it would be certainly be good for lawyers. He rejected the suggestion at that time. Does not his statement today confirm it?

Gordon Prentice: Am I the only Labour Member to be fed up with the constant sniping by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) at the Front Bench? I take the view that the Hunting Act that was passed is good law and we should leave it to the courts to decide how it should be implemented.

John Greenway: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is right in one thing: there have been two voices from the Government. First, there was a Bill that would have allowed hunting to continue under licence, and then there was a Government Bill to ban all hunting. That is what has exasperated my constituents. Given that they will lose their livelihood through this wretched measure, surely they should be permitted, without interference from the Government, to pursue all their entitlements through the courts in the proper way.

Peter Luff: Does not the delay in implementation, at which I think the Minister has hinted today, give all those who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare—that includes the middle way group, which I think includes the Minister, although sadly not the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton—a genuine chance to look again at any new evidence that has emerged since the measure became an Act of Parliament? In that context, will the Minister give a commitment to meet the middle way group to discuss its report on the welfare aspects of shooting foxes, which has passed the peer group review process and is established scientific fact?

Alun Michael: First, the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a lawyer, should know that the whole Bill is clear. It makes very clear what is illegal following the date of commencement, and I hope that he and Opposition Members who have, in other circumstances, enjoined people to obey the law will encourage their constituents to obey the Hunting Act 2004. The law is absolutely clear and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) ought to read the Act and counsel his constituents to obey the law. I should be interested to know whether he still holds to his words about letting loose the dogs of war or whether he supports his other statements about people obeying the law. The Conservative party needs to be a little bit clearer than it has been up to now as to whether it is a law-abiding party.
	The second point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was on discussions between lawyers on the two sides. I heard the chairman of the Countryside Alliance refer to those discussions and the alliance appears to have made it clear that it would apply for an injunction in the event of its failing in the hearing of first instance.
	Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to an article in The Sunday Telegraph. Through the encouragement of some Opposition Members, I have received various pieces of correspondence from people who, like him, have clearly not read the interesting article written by my Parliamentary Private Secretary. I should be interested to receive comments and contributions from people who have actually read the article. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman does so—he clearly has not done so as yet.

John Gummer: Will the Secretary of State accept that the very long time it has taken to get the United States to accept what surely ought to have been a natural reaction to representations by what has been her closest ally—even though many of us are unhappy about what we have done—casts doubt on the nature of the alliance? It is therefore important that he accepts the task of encouraging, pressing and pushing the United States to change its attitude to the kind of detention that has taken place in Guantanamo Bay. Its attitude damages the fight against terrorism because we have adopted there, as I believe we are adopting here, the very attitudes to human rights that we are trying to stop others removing.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General on their work—they have given us excellent news in advance of Eid celebrations, which will take place next week. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the detainees were subsequently to decide to pursue an action against the United States of America Sir David Manning and his officials in Washington would give them and their legal representatives every possible support?

Jack Straw: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend back in his place after his absence. He must make his own judgment about the circumstances in which I am making this statement. In the 26 years in which I have been in this House, however, I have heard some statements that compare with the one that I have just made. [Laughter.] The US Government must defend their own decisions. However, we are allies of the United States, so I shall offer an explanation of why they have come to those decisions and to put the matter in context.
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the issue of assassination squads in a slightly less well-publicised meeting than this—the cameras were not there and the journalists were outside. He said that we have seen no evidence whatsoever that the United States has employed assassination squads in Iraq, which we would not approve of. I happen to know—here I am defending as well as explaining—Ambassador John Negroponte, whom I regard as an international diplomat of the highest standing and integrity, and I am happy to defend that position against all comers.

Jack Straw: On the last point, the answer is: for some, yes, and for some, no. The international conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war—the Geneva conventions—were designed before we faced the threat of international terrorism and failing states, so the instruments have not quite caught up with the new reality.
	On the number of people detained, let me say, since there is obviously some suspicion that British citizens might be detained elsewhere, that I am absolutely certain that none is detained in Guantanamo Bay, and I know of no citizens detained in similar circumstances elsewhere. However, I am happy to follow that up for the benefit of the House to ensure that if there is any difference between what I recollect and the truth, a written ministerial statement will quickly be made to the House.
	There will be some Commonwealth citizens detained in Guantanamo Bay—including citizens of Pakistan, for example—as well as some people who have a right to indefinite residence in this country. I cannot, from this Dispatch Box, give an estimate of the numbers, but I can tell the House that one detainee who is a citizen of Australia was today released to the Australians by the United States Government.

John Bercow: Abuse of power by Governments to the detriment of individuals must surely carry a greater consequence than simple loss of face or damage to reputation. Pursuant to the points very wisely raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), would not it send an invaluable signal if the Foreign Secretary, instead of simply saying, "If people come to us about compensation we will follow it up", said, "There is no reason in principle why they should not receive compensation and every reason why they should"?

Paul Murphy: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland.
	As the House will be aware, a major robbery took place at the Northern bank in Belfast just before Christmas. At the end of last week, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland indicated that in his professional opinion responsibility for the robbery should be attributed to the Provisional IRA. He also made the point that quite apart from the massive scale of the robbery—more than £26 million—it was in no sense a victimless crime. Two families were kidnapped and threatened with death if they did not co-operate with the criminals. In the case of one of the families, the gang, masquerading as police officers, tricked their way into the house by claiming that a family member had been killed in a car accident. Once inside, they donned masks, produced guns and threatened the family. One of the hostages was later taken to an isolated forest where her car was burned and she was abandoned in the snow. She was forced to struggle in severe weather and in darkness across country to seek assistance in a highly distressed state and suffering from hypothermia. I want to reiterate my utter condemnation of those who planned and carried out that appalling crime.
	The Chief Constable's public remarks were necessarily constrained by the ongoing investigation. He has briefed me fully on the background which led him to make the statement that he made. I have no doubt that the Chief Constable's opinion is well founded. He did not rush to judgment. The Police Service of Northern Ireland thought initially that five groups could have been responsible for the robbery. Only when a great deal of evidence had been sifted did the Chief Constable make his statement. He is a man of the highest calibre and integrity, leading a professional team of officers acting entirely independently and objectively in pursuit of the criminals concerned. The Irish Government have also made their views on that aspect of the matter entirely clear. There will of course be a further dispassionate assessment of the position when the Independent Monitoring Commission makes its next report. I shall discuss with the Irish Government the time scale in which that report should be made.
	On the immediate follow-up to the robbery, I welcome the announcement by the Northern bank of its intention to withdraw from circulation its current bank notes and replace them with notes of a different design and colour. That decision will reduce materially the value of the robbery to the perpetrators and we will discuss with the bank how best to publicise the detailed arrangements.
	Since the Chief Constable's statement, there has been much comment about the impact of the developments on the political process in Northern Ireland. I cannot hide my own judgment that it is deeply damaging.
	On 9 December, I came to the House to report on the proposals by the British and Irish Governments for a comprehensive agreement, which had been published the previous day. They represented a series of statements that would have been made if there had been an overall agreement at that stage. They included a statement to the effect that paramilitary activity by the Provisional IRA would cease immediately and definitively. There was also a statement, to which the Democratic Unionist Party was committed, that after a period during which the good faith of the Provisional IRA's commitments had been demonstrated, an inclusive power-sharing Executive would be re-established in March this year. I need hardly remind hon. Members that that would have been nearly two and a half years after the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland were suspended.
	In the event, an outstanding issue, in relation to the transparency of the decommissioning process, could not be resolved. However, as I said to the House in December, we had made significant and substantial progress, not least in rebuilding the trust and confidence that is the essential requirement of a stable, inclusive, cross-community, devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.
	Today, I deeply regret that that progress has been put in jeopardy. I cannot forecast with certainty when it will prove possible to re-establish an inclusive power-sharing Executive, which the Government continue to believe provides the best long-term guarantee of peace and stability. We shall not abandon our commitment to that ultimate goal.
	We are in no doubt, however, that it can be achieved only if the Provisional IRA gives up not only terrorism but all the other forms of criminality in which it is implicated. Unionists in Northern Ireland have made clear that if those tests are met, they will work with Sinn Fein in a power-sharing Executive. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, it is entirely reasonable for Unionists to withhold their co-operation until those tests are met. We have consistently made it clear that, if a political settlement is to be achieved, any illegal activity has to come to an end. The documents published before Christmas were unambiguous on that point.
	Let me reiterate to the House that the Government will not promote a political settlement in which a party inextricably linked to an organisation that has carried out major criminal acts can assume responsibilities again in a devolved Administration. Nor could it take on the further responsibilities implied by the devolution of justice and policing while criminal activity of the kind we have just seen, and the capacity to plan and undertake such activity, continues to exist. It would be ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the people of Northern Ireland, from whatever background, voted for a political settlement on that basis in the referendum in 1998.
	Against that background, it is clear to me that decisions and responses on that are now needed from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. The comments from the Irish Government in recent days indicate that they share that view.
	Without the required responses from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA, I cannot see how we can reinvigorate the political talks that must precede a comprehensive settlement. Without those responses, the Governments and, indeed, the House, will need to consider how best in the changed circumstances to bring pressure to bear on the republican movement to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, including any penalties that might be applied to Sinn Fein.
	I spoke to the Irish Foreign Minister on Friday and will meet him when he returns from a visit to the tsunami-stricken areas of Asia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will meet the Taoiseach towards the end of the month. In the meantime, I expect to talk to the Northern Ireland parties over the next two weeks with a view to hearing first hand their assessments of the current position and their views on several difficult questions that now face us, including, for example, the appropriateness of continuing to pay the salaries and allowances of the individuals elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly in November 2003 and our proposed way forward on the regulation of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland.
	I cannot disguise my deep disappointment at what has happened, but my disappointment is as nothing compared with that of the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve better, given the progress in so many areas of their lives in recent years. The Government, continuing to work in close partnership with the Irish Government, will do everything they can to ensure that that progress is not lost and that we can continue to move forward as soon as possible to a comprehensive political settlement. In the meantime, my colleagues and I will continue to apply ourselves to governing Northern Ireland as effectively as possible in the absence of a devolved Administration.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the process. I agree with him that the impact of these events is deeply worrying and serious. I shall try to answer his individual questions one by one. He asked whether the principles that apply to a Government in Dublin should apply to a power-sharing Executive; I am sure that that is the case. I have already said that the Government will not tolerate any form of criminality associated with a group that is associated with a political party in Northern Ireland. Perhaps more significantly, however, the political parties in Northern Ireland take a very strong view on this issue.
	In regard to whether we could form a power-sharing Executive without Sinn Fein, the Government's view—the view expressed in the Good Friday agreement—has always been that the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the people of Ireland voted for an inclusive power-sharing Executive. The ultimate answer is to see the end of criminality on the island of Ireland, and in Northern Ireland in particular, whether that criminality comes from republican or loyalist sources. The Government have not ruled anything out or in, but a lot will depend on the discussions that I have over the next couple of weeks with the political parties to discover their views on the issue. At the end of the day, two things matter: one is that there be consensus among the political parties in Northern Ireland as to what they want; the other is that, whatever happens, we cannot establish an Executive in Northern Ireland without either Unionist or nationalist representation. To that end, the parties could suggest other alternatives to us for the short term, over the coming months. They could include ways in which direct-rule Ministers could be made more accountable; I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	On recalling licensed prisoners who might be connected to the bank robbery, I am monitoring all the circumstances surrounding the robbery very carefully and I can confirm that I shall not hesitate to use the powers available to me to suspend the licence of any ex-prisoner if I am satisfied that he or she has broken, or is likely to break, any of his or her licence conditions. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requested on that matter.
	The Government intend to move away from the current exemptions for the Northern Ireland political parties from the normal rules on publishing their accounts and receiving foreign donations. We shall be holding discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, the Irish Government and the Electoral Commission on these issues, and we shall seek an extension of the current exemptions to allow time for that consultation. I know that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will be discussing this matter with me in more detail in the weeks ahead.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of this House suspending the privileges and parliamentary allowances of Sinn Fein Members. First, I have already said in my statement that the Government will consider a range of possibilities in the coming days, and I think the House would agree that we need to take some time to consider the most effective way of bringing pressure to bear on the republican movement. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Not least because we need to discuss a number of the issues relating to sanctions and penalties with the Irish Government—[Interruption.] Perhaps the House will allow me to finish. Secondly, I understand that the House has its own rules regarding whether we should allow such actions to happen, and the Government will have to reflect on the significance of that. Thirdly, the Independent Monitoring Commission also has a role in determining what sanctions and penalties, if any, should be introduced with regard to Sinn Fein. We do not want to take a decision on these issues today, because we need to look at the whole picture. I have not ruled anything out on these issues.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to organised crime in Northern Ireland, be it from a loyalist, republican or any other source. He can rest assured that the Organised Crime Task Force and all the other agencies in Northern Ireland will bend their attentions to ensuring that we deal with these issues with the utmost urgency, not least because if this criminality is allowed to continue—not just the criminality that we have seen over the last few weeks, although the problem was dramatically illustrated by this robbery—it will corrupt politics and society. We cannot allow that to happen in Northern Ireland, not least because the people there voted against that.

Paul Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a threat to the process, as I am sure that all hon. Members do. The Chief Constable made it clear in his statement last week that he came to his conclusion professionally and that his professional judgment rested on examining the evidence, whether that was from intelligence or the criminal investigation. He said that all lines of his and his senior officers' inquiry led him to his conclusion.
	My hon. Friend will understand that between 45 and 47 police officers are working on the inquiry. A hundred interviews have been held with 100 more to be held in the near future. It would be wrong of the Chief Constable or the police to reveal all that evidence during the course of an investigation, because as my hon. Friend and others will know, that would seriously jeopardise the chances of catching and convicting the culprits—that is the danger. However, I have read a great deal of the evidence that the Chief Constable has seen and I have no doubt that what he said was right.

Lembit �pik: I am sure that we all agree that the raid was a terrifying ordeal for the civilians caught up in it. No doubt they feared for their lives, and it is a relief to us all that they escaped unharmed.
	We all continue to have high respect for Hugh Orde, but I am also surprised by his and the Government's willingness to blame the IRA for the robbery without revealing the evidence. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he believes that anyone who is prosecuted for the crime will turn out to be associated directly or indirectly with the IRA? If he cannot give us that assurance today, he cannot claim that the IRA was necessarily behind it.
	The Secretary of State asks us to take it on trustwithout sharing evidencethat the IRA was behind the crime, but if he wants to use the defence that he should not share that evidence while the investigation is continuing, perhaps it was not wise to share a conclusion before the investigation had ended. Is there not a danger that that might prejudice the outcome of a court case, because we would be prosecuting not an organisation but individuals?
	We are meant to be normalising Northern Ireland, so is the Secretary of State aware that his fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), refused this morning to say that the Government would necessarily specify an organisation on the basis of criminal activity? Why are the Government unwilling to specify sanctions against paramilitary organisations involved in crime, even if they are not willing to specify the organisations themselves? If it turns out that a paramilitary organisation is behind this substantial criminal offence, it is rather surprising that the Government shy away from giving an assurance that they would consider specifying it on the basis of that.
	It will be difficult to normalise Northern Ireland if paramilitary organisations do not fear the sanction of being specified on the basis of serious criminal activity. That stems from the fact that we have never had a clear definition of ceasefire. Is it not time to use paragraph 13 of the joint declaration as a clear definition of ceasefire, and to add to it the idea that sanctions will extend to criminality as well as terrorism? Is it not the case that until we have a clear and explicit statement of the sanctions that paramilitary organisations can expect when perpetrating organised crime, we are unlikely to resolve the problems of crime or, indeed, terror?

Paul Murphy: I could not agree less with my hon. Friend. I find it extremely unusual for her to suggest that the words in my statement could give comfort to the IRAperhaps she will reflect on that.
	I indicated in response to a previous question that I have neither ruled in nor out the possibility of persuading democratic parties in Northern Ireland to set up a voluntary coalition excluding Sinn Fein. However, the reality is that such an arrangement could be made only if the political parties in Northern Ireland that would form part of that coalition agreed to it. The coalition would have to be made up of Unionists and nationalists. It is thus incumbent on the Government, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, to consider other means of increasing accountability for direct-rule Ministers.
	I do not think that anyone would disagree that the most important matter before us today is how to stop criminality in Northern Ireland. If that stopped, and we were persuaded that it had stopped, we could of course enter into an inclusive Executive. If that does not happen, it does not happen, but anyone who suggests that we should not work towards that and stop criminality would not be thanked by people in Northern Ireland. If that does not work, we will have to find other arrangementsI have not ruled those outbut the House should reflect on the fact that it is incumbent on me to talk to political parties in Northern Ireland to get their views on where we might go, which I intend to do. People in Northern Ireland would not want us to take precipitate decisions today without doing that.

Seamus Mallon: First, I want to pay tribute to members of both Governments who have worked so assiduously on this mater. That will not prevent me from pointing out that there is a fault line in the negotiation process, which is exemplified by the way in which, for more than seven years, every attempt was made to buy the IRA Army Council into the political process at the expense of other factorsnot just buying in republicans but others. There is a fault line in any political process when people must be bought into such a process in a place like Northern Ireland. It is an even worse fault line when, added to that, we have secret deals that amount to political patronage, and secret arrangements with paramilitary groups, and when the law itself can be bartered for political reasons, as was attempted in the Republic of Ireland.
	May I ask the Secretary of State one thing? This bartering of the Good Friday agreement has sucked dry the idealism and hope that exists within the community. That idealism, vision and hope is disappearing. As the Secretary of State is a man for whom I have enormous respect, may I ask him to get rid of the fault line in the negotiating process and reinvent integrity, decency and honesty in it, so that once again, I, as one who has been involved for many years, can say with pride that I am part of the political process rather than seeing it becoming more and more of a moral quagmire?

Eddie McGrady: Will the Secretary of State, and indeed all Members, send a message of hope for the well-being of the families who were involved, or coerced, in this terrible, savage and brutal crime? My constituents the McMullen family, who are both neighbours and friends, were savagely treated.
	The Secretary of State often says, as he did last Friday, that there can be no place for terrorist or criminal activity. Let me say bluntly that we have heard that mantra in different forms for a number of years. What about the intelligence to which the Secretary of State has been privy over those years, and what has been reiterated by many Members in the House month after month? Political Sinn Fein is the Provisional IRA in lounge suits, and every day in my community it is imposing its will and diktat. When will the Government get real, and stop Sinn Fein's criminal and paramilitary activities being made to seem credible and proper?

Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State has already indicated his respect for the views of the people of Northern Ireland. How does he respond to the prevailing view in Northern Ireland that on this issue, there are two certainties? The first is that the Provisional IRA will continue with their terrorism and criminality; the second is that after a very short time passes, the Secretary of State's tough talk will dissolve and the Government will be back to holding their hands again.How is it that in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Secretary of State's statement, the clearest of indications is given to Provisional Sinn Fein that he will not allow the process to move on without them? Why is democracy in Northern Ireland to be held back because of gunmen and gangsters? Surely the time has come to make it very clear that politics moves on, and moves on without them.

Tim Yeo: I begin by expressing my deepest sympathy, and that of the Opposition, to the families of those who lost their lives in the floods and gales that hit the north-west last weekend, and to the thousands of people who have suffered severe hardship, inconvenience and anxiety, along with damage to their property. I join the Minister in paying a warm tribute to the emergency servicesthey responded in very difficult conditions in order to rescue people trapped by the floodingto the work of the many volunteers who supported them, and to the role played by Cumbria county council and other authorities.
	I welcome the application of the Bellwin formula and the statement from the Association of British Insurers. The priority is, of course, to provide help for the victims of the floods and get them back home as soon as possible, and to restore essential servicesincluding electricity and water suppliesvery swiftly. On learning lessons from what has happened, and given in particular the loss of life, will the Minister review the arrangements for warning those likely to be affected about the onset of extreme weather that might threaten their homes? Indeed, I understand that such warnings might be needed again in that region in the near future.
	Once the immediate consequences of the floods have been redressed, questions arise about what other steps the Government can reasonably take. Inevitably, sudden and severe rainfall is likely to cause floods and I accept the Minister's point that no system of flood defences can guarantee total protection against adverse consequences. It is, however, a characteristic of climate change that sudden and severe rainfall will occur more frequently in future than it has in the past. It may be more than a century since this part of England suffered such severe floods, but we cannot assume that another century will pass before it happens again.
	The Government have themselves admitted that more than a million homes around the country are at risk of being flooded, so is the Minister satisfied that the planning process takes enough account of flood risks? Have not the risks been worsened by too much development taking place in areas that are in danger of being flooded and in places where the construction of buildings will increase the risk of existing buildings being flooded? Regardless of whether that was a factor in the latest incident, does the Minister agree that one way to reduce the risk of loss of life and damage to property resulting from flooding would be to require local authorities to adopt a more precautionary approach in respect of flood risk when giving planning consent for new development?
	Turning to the broader issue of climate change, does the Minister accept that the severity of the rainfall that caused these floods is indeed a characteristic of climate change and is likely to recur? Does he also agree that it adds urgency to the challenge that Britain and the rest of the world face in tackling a threat that some may see as distant and global, but whose consequences can be very immediate and local?
	Finally, will the Minister keep Parliament and the public regularly informed in a timely way about progress made on the immediate task of restoring public services to the affected areas and providing help to those who suffered, and on proposals for a new flood defence scheme to protect Carlisle and the surrounding area?

Eric Martlew: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I first ask you to pass on my thanks to Mr. Speaker for his kind words of sympathy and support for my constituents and myself yesterday? I also thank the Minister not just for his statement today, but for his prompt action in visiting Carlisle. I rang him on the Saturday, and by Sunday lunchtime he was there. That was greatly appreciated by my constituents. The Minister was able to answer many of their questions about Government support. As I said, it will not be forgotten.
	Last Friday night and Saturday morning were horrendous. The Minister said that it was the worst flooding since 1822 and there is a mark on the Eden bridge to show that flood level. The recent flood went beyond it. It was horrendous. Within 36 hours, we had 9 in of rain. Tragically, three people died: Mr. Scott was killed by falling farm masonry, and two elderly ladies, Mrs. Threlkeld and Mrs. Porter, who lived in Warwick road in my constituency, sadly drowned in the incident. I want to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of all those people, and I know that the House is with me on that. Another consequence was the flooding of 3,000 houses, and almost 100,000 people were without electricity, many for three nights. It has been a very difficult time.
	I particularly thank the agencies involved in support. The police and the fire service did everything that they could, and more besides. We need to recall that both the fire station and the police station were under 6 ft of water, reflecting the seriousness of the problem. The city council and the county council were excellent, especially social services in looking after the elderly and the young. The reception centres were manned by volunteersthe Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and the Churches. The Minister and I visited them on Sunday and we saw the tremendous welcome that people were given at those centres. The community spirit in the city has been brilliant. United Utilities and the Environment Agency pulled people in from all over the country to get services back to normal as quickly as possible.
	A special thank you should also go to BBC Radio Cumbria. Many people have told me that it was a lifeline. The telephones were down and there were no proper communications, so people listened to their car radios or battery-charged radios. It was the only way to get the information out. Without that, things would be have been even more intolerable for many people.
	There should be further investigation of certain problems. I believe that the early warning flood system failed for some people, including myself. The local authority may also have been hampered by a shortage of sandbags. I am not convinced that the insurance industry has done itself any good, either. It was very slow to respond, especially at the weekend.
	What of the future? Many industries and businesses in my constituency have been badly affected economically and I am sure that redundancies will follow. I hope that the Government will be generous in giving help. I want to ask the Minister to think about what more the regional development agencies could do to help us. He has already touched on helping local authorities. I have asked him to talk to the insurance companies to see whether they can lift their performance. Will he also ask United Utilities to do its best on the ground to get services back to normal? I understand that at this very moment, accountants are looking at ways to fiddle the compensation awarded to my constituents. It is very bad indeed to see people trying to wriggle out of their commitments. My constituents need every penny to get themselves back on their feet.
	In conclusion, I thank the Minister and ask him whether he will come back to Carlisle in a few weeks' time when we know the full extent of the damage, in order to talk to the stakeholders in the area and move forward. Finally, I want to say how proud I have been of my constituents over the last few days.

Elliot Morley: I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleague, who contacted me immediately about the emergency that his constituents faced. He is a flood victim himself, and has been severely affected, but he took time out to go around the various centres and to talk to people and the local authorities involved. He did everything that he could to support his constituents in the emergency. I join him in paying tribute to BBC Radio Cumbria, which did a sterling job in passing on information and keeping people informed.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that a full and complete assessment will be made of the response to the emergency when the flood's immediate effects have been dealt with. There will be time then to begin the process of identifying any weaknesses in the warning system. If any such weaknesses are found, they will need to be rectified.
	My Department has been in touch with the ABI which, along with many individual insurance companies, has a lot of experience with such problems. The record in relation to getting assessors out to people quickly is good. Assessments are made quickly so that people can get builders in and begin to replace damaged goods. I am sure that the ABI will take note of what has been said and that it will act accordingly.
	As I said, local authorities will take the lead in the post-flood recovery programme. However, I have asked the Government office for the north-west to work with local authorities and the local regional development agency to determine what support it can give and which issues need to be addressed. I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says about United Utilities Water. Its staff worked around the clock and did a fantastic job in reconnecting a severely damaged electricity sub-station as quickly as possible. It is possible that some of the good will gained could be lost if there are difficulties over the detail of the agreed compensation packages. I assure my hon. Friend that I will draw his comments to the attention of colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who I am sure will want to examine what he has said.
	Finally, I accept that much attention is given to the immediate consequences of a flood. There is a lot of media attention, and people show a great deal of support at that time, but afterwardswhen the clean-up and repair work is startedpeople can feel that they have been forgotten. I want to assure the people of Carlisle and the other affected areas that they will not be forgotten. I shall certainly look at my diary, with a view to returning to the area to see how the recovery process is progressing.

Norman Baker: I also express, on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, my sympathy to the people of Carlisle and the neighbouring areas. The severe weather at the weekend must have been a dreadful experience, especially for the families who sadly lost their lives. I also want to endorse the thanks that have been extended to the emergency services, the local and central Government agencies that have been involved, and the voluntary sector. The help that has been given has been invaluable, as it has been on other occasions elsewhere in the country.
	It is important to restore life to normal as soon as possible. I welcome what the Minister said in that regard, and I recognise the work that he and his colleagues in DEFRA and other Departments are doing.
	The Minister spoke about the lessons to be learned. Does he agree that, in essence, there are two such lessons? The first is that we must accelerate even more our proactive efforts to put in place measures to tackle and limit the impact of climate change. The Minister will be aware that the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, believes that flooding will be the first manifestation of that change to affect this country in an extensive manner.
	That is already beginning to happen. I asked a parliamentary question about how many times the Thames barrier has been opened. I was told that the figure has risen from two or three times a year in the 1980s to a projected 325 times a year by the end of this century. It is clear that we are going to have major problems with water and flooding in this century.
	The second lesson is that we must take measures to deal with the consequences of climate change, and to limit as far as possible the impact that it has on individuals and communities. I agree with the Minister that it is impossible to eliminate all floods all the time, but does he agree that there is a need to improve flood defences even faster than the current rate? I acknowledge that the Government have put more money into that, and that they have sorted out some of the delivery problems. However, even more must be done, because the risks are increasing dramatically.
	Will the Minister tell the people of Carlisle when they are likely to have flood defences in place that will eliminate the greater part of the risk that they face at present? Will he reflect on what happened in the year 2000, when another series of severe floods hit Britain? My constituency of Lewes, and other areas, were badly hit, and the Deputy Prime Minister regarded what happened as a wake-up call. How many of the towns affected in 2000 have flood defence schemes in place now? How many have had such schemes authorised, and in how many areas has nothing been done?
	With the best will in the worldand I accept that the Government are doing their best in many respectsI fear that we have not made as much progress as we should have done. Lewes in my constituency has had only a tiny part of the necessary flood defence work completed. Nothing else has been approved, but once again we have floods up to the bridge today.
	Will the Minister look again at PPG25, paying particular regard to the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called sustainable communities east of London? Will he quantify the additional flood risk that will be caused by those communities if they are built in the way that has been set out?
	Will the Minister encourage insurance companies to continue to provide cover for people in Carlisle, and elsewhere? He will know that, after 2000, there was some dispute about whether cover should be provided for flood-affected properties. It can be a very unwelcome realisation for people who have been flooded to discover that they can have no insurance subsequently. Will he encourage the insurance industry to be creative in its response? Companies should not go for like-for-like replacements but should, for example, move electrical sockets up from floorboard level and place them higher up walls to minimise the impact of any future flood.
	Britain will suffer more, and more severe, flooding in the future. The Government have begun to move on the matter, but we have not yet seen the step change that we need.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right about the implications of climate change. The Prime Minister has given a very clear and international lead on this matter. It is one of the key themes of our G8 presidency, and I have already mentioned the conference that we will hold. The matter will be discussed at a joint conference for environment and development Ministersthe first of its kind to be held under the aegis of the G8. Some of the developing economies, such as Brazil, India and China, will also be invited to participate in the conference, at which climate change will be one of the subjects for discussion.
	Consultations in respect of the Carlisle flood defence scheme are already well advanced, as the process was already under way. The effects of the recent events on Carlisle will be taken into account when the scheme is designed. I hope that the matter can be progressed as quickly as humanly possible. In Carlisle, I was accompanied by Sir John Harman, the chair of the Environment Agency, who said that the scheme would be examined to determine how it could be taken forward as smoothly as possible.
	I understand the point made about Lewes, but I can tell the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that, if he were to table a parliamentary question on this matter, I think that he would find that every community affected in 2000 either has a flood defence scheme in place now, or that there is one being put in place. In those areas where such schemes are not possible for technical reasons, we have put in place catchment area plans, and we have also made use of temporary, portable barriers with some success.
	Our record is a good one. Spending has increased from some 300 million in 1997 to a projected 570 million this year. That is a significant investment in respect of flood defence. The hon. Member for Lewes asked whether it was possible to take things forward more quickly, but it is likely that the level of spending now implemented will absorb our total capacity when it comes to engineers and consultants. Moreover, the design and planning processes must also be taken into account. Unfortunately, neither of those processes is quick, but they are both necessary and important. Sometimes technical issues arise. For example, one complication in Lewes involved the question of which of the various riparian owners were responsible for the town's walls. That is another dimension that has to be taken into account. We have the latest strategy, which has been sent to DEFRA, and we are considering it in relation to Lewes.
	With reference to insurance, the Association of British Insurers issued a statement of principles, whereby its members would continue to provide insurance because of the continued investment by the Government. The Government have met their side of the bargain, and I am glad to say that with that statement the ABI has done so too.

Elliot Morley: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the engineers of United Utilities who have indeed worked around the clock. I met some of its engineers; they were based in the gold command so that there could be liaison on the work that was being done. They were also able to give me a full and detailed briefing on the situation and on what they were doing to reconnect power.
	I can certainly confirm that the Bellwin scheme will apply to any authority in the Cumbrian region that qualifies under the criteria. If there is additional expense above the agreed threshold, any local authority is entitled to make a claim within the one-month qualifying period.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments about the call centre will be taken into account by the DTI. Just as we shall evaluate the response of the Government and of public bodies, I am sure that utility companies, too, will in due course want to evaluate their response.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill takes forward legislation that will, I hope, help to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur every day on the roads and to improve road safety for all road users.
	The UK has one of the best road safety records in the world. It is a record that most EU countries, for example, strive to match. We are better than the United States and the Australians, and on a par with Sweden and the Netherlands, yet the fact remains that 10 people are killed on our roads every day. It is against that background that I ask the House to consider the Bill.
	Like successive Governments, the Government are committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. That is why, in March 2000, we set out a strategy to deliver substantial reductions in road casualties. I remind the House of the targets we set: a 40 per cent. reduction in all road casualties by 2010, with a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children who are killed or seriously injured.
	Good progress has been made. For example, in 2003, we saw a 6 per cent. fall in the number of people killed or seriously injuredthe biggest annual drop since the road safety strategy was launched four years ago. By 2003, the number of people killed or seriously injured had fallen by 20 per cent., which means we are about halfway towards our 40 per cent. target for 2010, and the number of children killed or seriously injured had fallen to just over 4,100, which is more than three quarters of the way towards achieving the 50 per cent. reduction target for children.
	Despite that welcome progress, too many people are killed or seriously injured.

Andrew Miller: I want to push my right hon. Friend on that point. In the context of clause 16, is he therefore saying that he is open to persuasion that the arguments set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) might be a better solution than his initial feeling that a move down is possible. Is he open to persuasion, or is he taking a fixed view at this stage?

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that opinion polls are not yet making that the racing certainty to which I look forward, but we are not quite in extra time yet. If that happy eventuality comes about, however, and the British people have something to celebrate later in the year, I will require the relevant authorities, the Highways Agency and others, to assess what steps can be taken to reduce accident rates on roads classified as high-riskmarked in black on the AA EuroRAP map. In the first full term of a Conservative Government, we will extend that requirement to all roads classified as medium-high-risk, which are shown in red on the same map.

Tim Yeo: I am suggesting that we have clear data showing that some roadshappily, a relatively small numberare much more dangerous than others. We need to try to analyse what steps could be taken, and the hon. Gentleman may have just suggested one of them. I do not know whether changes in speed limit, for reasons such as he has described, are a factor on those high-risk roads. Given that we know that some roads are much more high-risk than others, it is worth exploring whether simple stepssuch as the one that he suggests, perhapscould be taken to reduce those risks. I am sure that we would do that with any other transport mode, and we ought to start doing it with roads. Tolerating the idea that some roads are more dangerous than others seems simply unacceptable.
	Data about other fatalities also need to be addressed. Young male drivers are five times more likely to be killed than middle-aged drivers. That is a horrifying statistic, and it is probably due less to inferior driving skills than to the attitudes adopted by some young male drivers once they are behind the wheel. I recall from my student days the circumstances in which fatalities might be higher than average. Particular concern arises when young males are driving with members of their peer group as passengers. Nothing in the Bill appears to address those challenges, which is a pity. Is it not time to explore new ways of encouraging more responsible driving by young men?

Tim Yeo: That is an interesting suggestion. I think that we should adopt an evidence-based approach. If data suggests that particular types of driver are particularly prone to certain accidents, we may be able to identify measuressuch as graduated licensingto tackle that. I think that the Secretary of State accepted the principle when he expressed surprise at the idea that, with his existing driving licence and many years' experience of driving a car, he could get on to a very powerful motor cycle and would not be restricted from engaging in what might be a more risky activityalthough I am sure that in the Secretary of State's case, it would not be. I have observed his measured approach to these and other issues over the past nine months or so, and I am sure that if he got on to a very powerful motor cycle, it would be equally measured.
	The hon. Gentleman's general point is valid. I think that the public are ready to accept such changes, and there is recognition that by adopting an evidence-based approach we could reduce the risk. Some of the points made in the Transport Committee's report Traffic Law and its Enforcement, published last autumn, reflect his thinking.
	I have touched on the twin problems of roads that are more dangerous than the average and drivers who are more accident-prone than the average. If the Government are to adopt a more comprehensive strategy, and if we are to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads, they must accept that measures to tackle those problems directly will be needed.
	A hollow laugh will greet the statement issued by the Secretary of State this morningand referred to, albeit briefly, in his speechabout a new strategy for policing the roads. The Conservative party strongly supports the use of more police to tackle illegal and antisocial use of the roads, but this is the Government who have cut the number of traffic officers by 1,500 since they came to power. In 1999, traffic officers were conveniently redefined to include operational and organisational support officers, who are employed to perform functions other than being out on the streets. The actual number of operational traffic officers, mainly on motor cycles or in patrol vehicles, has dropped even furtherperhaps by between a quarter and a thirdsince 1997.
	That really is a scandal, and it is, I am afraid, one reason why the public now have such low regard for Ministers. The Secretary of State, who really should know better, is making a grossly misleading attempt to claim that he is doing something to address the problem through an initiative. Actually, the fact that there are fewer traffic officers enforcing the law and making our roads safer is entirely the result of this Government's policies.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is exactly the sort of problem that we should be addressing urgently.
	The Select Committee on Transport looked carefully at the Bill, because we thought that there were several straightforward questions that the House should ask. Is road traffic legislation correct and appropriate? Do the police have the right priorities in their attitude towards the whole question of policing traffic? Is there sufficient priority in legislation for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists? Could we do more to deal with dangerous drivers before they become lethal? Are we convinced that we need changes in responsibilities that will, almost inevitably, impinge on the way that we police our roads? Are we sure that those priorities are correct?
	My Committee looked carefully across the board. We found many good things in the Bill, but we are also concerned. Inevitably, the House of Commons ought to lead on such a subject. Frequently, when we frame laws, we give a general impression to the public about how we ought to deal with death and destruction that comes in the form of a road traffic accident.
	If we make it clear that we are utterly against such developments and that the decisions that we take about management tools, such as speed cameras, are meant to cut deaths and if we make it even clearer that the law ought to be enforced very strongly against those who cause death by dangerous driving, we ought to have the support of the general public.
	If, however, we frame legislation that appears somehow or other to underplay the importance of deaths in road traffic accidents and if we run campaigns that, for various populist reasons, seem to say that speed cameras are not instruments of care and protection but something that ought to be destroyed, the general public will think either that we are not serious or that we do not understand the full implications of what we are doing. So my Committee was concerned about what is missing from the Bill as much as what is in it.
	We have already heard from many hon. Members about death by dangerous driving. I am not a lawyer, and I am prepared to believe that there are real difficulties in framing certain charges, but the reality is that, if someone has lost a member of their family because of someone driving a car, they do not believe that justice has been done if that person receives either a small fine or some kind of restriction on their licence, and there is no genuine acceptance of the fact that that death was not only unnecessary, but unwarranted and indefensible.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Absolutely astonished. That was one of the things that the Committee looked at very carefullyother members of the Committee will want to make such points strongly laterbut the points that I want to make are about policy direction as much as anything else.
	I believe the Secretary of State to be not only highly efficient, but very caring. He has demonstrated, time and again, that his legislative priorities are exactly the right ones. I therefore hope that, when I say very strongly that I believe that his colleagues in the Home Office are not behaving in the same responsible manner, he will understand that I expect of him a commitment to chase them very hard about what is happening.
	My Committee was told that an overall review of road traffic law is taking place in the Home Office, that a considerable amount of work is being done and that we must wait for the extension of road traffic legislation before the Home Office can produce measured conclusions. I therefore ask the Secretary of State why we are still waiting a year after we were promised the Halliday report. Where is that report? Given the high public profile of the Home Office, which seems to concern itself with every aspect of our lives, why are we still waiting for that report to be published and brought to the House of Commons?
	If we are serious about road traffic legislation, that report is one of the things that should have been produced already. If the report has not been published, why not? If the report has been published, has the Department for Transport seen it? Was it allowed to look at the complex legal issues and has its advice been sought in relation to the report's conclusions? It is extraordinary that the Home Office is not working much more closely with the lead Department on road safety because such things will make the difference.
	That brings me to the specific point of enforcement. It is essential that the Home Office realises that the failure to put road traffic among the core responsibilities of chief constables has meant that its importance is unevenly stressed across the United Kingdom. Some chief constables accept that legislation is vital and that the activity has to be regarded as seriously as other forms of criminal activity. Unfortunately, chief constables in some counties do not regard that activity as having the same implications as other activities.
	The Select Committee was very concerned with the evidence and the responses we received from, not only Home Office Ministers, but those who felt generally that there was no clear line of responsibility and that the pressure to take the matter seriously did not exist. If individual forces do not provide the people to police our roads and do not insist on the subject being taken seriously, we will see the results in terms of accidents. It is clearly a matter of cause and effect.
	We have been given a long and, if the Secretary of State will forgive me, somewhat imprecise series of answers to the questions that we posed in our report's conclusion. I am still worried. Co-operation between the two Departments has not been demonstrated and there is no clear evidence of the urgency and targeting that should concern us. It is clear from our responses that most enforcement activity is carried out in 30 mph urban areas. The Transport Statistics Bulletin on vehicle speeds shows that the percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit reduced from 69 per cent. to 58 per cent. in 2003. In other words, more than half of all cars in urban areas are speeding. By doing so, they are vastly increasing the risk to pedestrians and other motorists. How can we accept a statistic like that? How can we still, in 2004, be debating the same questions over and over again?
	Even today, the Opposition gave us a classic example of the muddle that exists. On the one hand, we appear to be saying that we want law enforcement, but on the other we are saying that we do not want to do anything that upsets the populace or the powerful motoring lobby.
	As a nation, we have to clarify what we want in our minds. While television programmes, motoring magazines and individual articles constantly emphasise that speed is clever, macho and directly connected with the male personaonly alpha males know about speedwe are inculcating in our young men, and often in our young people generally, a very dangerous thought. We should be saying, Yes, cars are important. Yes, you need them. Yes, you can use them. But they are killing machines. The damage done by tonnes of steel and glass hitting a body does not encourage us to believe that the subject should be treated lightly.
	Our report will ask for many changes. I hope that the Standing Committee accepts some of them. If the Government are serious about death and destruction, this is the moment to have targeted, tough and explicit legislation.

John Thurso: I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the connection between speed and the male persona. An interesting article in Aberdeen's The Press  Journal yesterdaya paper I doubt she would have occasion to readhad the disturbing report that female drivers are starting to outweigh their male counterparts in terms of speeding. The problem, to which she is right to draw attention, is not just relevant to one sex, but runs across the strands of young people, be they male or female.
	The United Kingdom has a good road safety record. In fact, it is one of the best in the world. However, as we heard, there are still 10 deaths each day on our roads. In 2002, the last year for which figures are available, 302,605 people were injured on the roads, 3,431 were killed and 35,976 were seriously injured. As has been said, with any other mode of transport there would be a public scandal, and we can certainly do much to reduce the total. A number of measures can and should be introduced, including many in the Bill, although, as I shall explain, there are some serious omissions. My colleagues and I are happy to give the Bill our full support on Second Reading. We will give it our general and broad support in Committee, but I hope that some of my suggestions will be taken on board.
	The UK generally has a good road safety record, but, interestingly, it masks areas of poor performance. For example, in 2002, 179 children were killed, 58 per cent. of whom were pedestrians, so the UK's child pedestrian record is one of the worst in western Europe. Two thirds of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured take place on roads where the speed limit is 40 mph or less. It is worth noting that 60 per cent. of accidents occur on rural roads. There are worrying signs that positive trends that have moving downwards for a number a years, including drink-driving, are now either static or increasing. The UK's generally good record can be improved through targeted action, so the Government are right to introduce the Bill.
	Clause 1 allows Ministers in England and the National Assembly for Wales to fund road safety initiatives. That is a sensible power that will do much to improve the situation, and it is already available in Scotland. A substantial contribution to road safety can be made through road engineering and safety schemes as well as enforcement measures. We therefore support the initiative.
	I have considerable concerns about graduated penalties, particularly for speeding. It is a long-established principle in British justice that punishment varies with the severity of the crime, so I do not object to the principle of graduated penalties or punishment. I am, however, concerned that the structure proposed in the consultation paper published last September ignores the outcome of the offence, particularly for speeding in towns and villages. An armed burglar receives a more severe sentence than an unarmed burglar not necessarily because of what they have done but because of what might have happened if they met someone while committing the crime. Two thirds of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured take place where the speed limit is below 40 mph.
	In areas with a 30 mph speed limit, the consultation proposed a lower penalty of two points and 40 for speeds of up to 39 mph. The chances of surviving the impact of a car travelling at 35 mph are half those of surviving the impact of a car travelling at 30 mph. I am therefore concerned that if the penalty were accepted for speeds between 30 and 40 mph the House would send the wrong message, suggesting that modest speeding in towns is acceptable. By contrast, the difference in outcomes when cars are travelling at 70 or 80 mph on the motorway is less stark. To a certain extent, the speed limits on motorways and dual carriageways, which are specifically engineered for faster speeds, are a compromise between our desire to travel quickly and our desire to travel safely while having regard to the environmental consequences of higher speeds. However, where there is mixed use of the road by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and others, particularly in built-up areas, the balance must shift from the car and the driver and towards pedestrians, who the suffer the effects. Observance of the 30 mph speed limit is critical in reducing injury and death, and I hope that the Government take that point on board.
	Almost every week, I travel up the A9 on several occasions. I have followed cars driven at 50 mph by respectable middle-aged peoplepeople such as mewho do not slow down that much when they come to towns. I do 30 mph as they whizz away. Many middle-aged drivers do not understand the difference between impacts at 30 mph, 35 mph and 40 mph. They would think that one were a speeder if one passed them at 60 mph on the open road, but they happily go through towns at 35 mph or 40 mph. That point is extremely important. Although we do not oppose graduation in principle, our support in Committee will depend on the detail of the likely outcome being fleshed outwe have grave difficultly in accepting a two-point penalty for offences up to 39 mph.
	I support moves to ban detection and avoidance devices. It is crazy to have a law, yet allow the use of a device to stop detection. I used to know people who fitted such devices to their cars, and they were not people who would inadvertently drive a little bit fast. They actually wanted to drive a great deal faster than the legal limit and knowingly to break the limit. I am sorry to say that they are the most likely people to buy such devices, which I have no qualms in seeing being made illegal.
	Clauses 11 to 15 deal with drink-driving. We have come a long way since the introduction of the breathalyser. I obtained my licence at about the time when the first breathalysers were introduced, when, if someone was caught drink-driving, people would say, Oh dear. You poor fellow. What bad luck.
	Most sensible driversthe vast majority of the populationnow accept that drink-driving is a dangerous and serious crime. Together with sound enforcement, that change in attitude has seen a steady decline in drink-driving and drink-related accidents. However, it is worrying that that trend appears to have stopped and even to have reversed, with figures showing a rise in drink-related injuries and deaths over recent years. It has already been said that the rise has been accompanied by a fall in tests undertaken by police and the number of police who are on the road and who are available to conduct tests, although I must state that the percentage of tests failed has risen too. I cannot believe that a relationship does not exist between lower police numbers, fewer tests and higher drink-related accident rates.
	This summer, I discussed drink-driving with the area commander in my constituency, who pointed out that one of the greatest worries is that many drink-drivers are not young people but middle-aged males. Again, the problem is not that those people have one drink too many, but that they consume as much as twice the limit. The trend by which people who should know better commit seriously-over-the-limit offences is very disturbing.

John Thurso: A week ago, I had an interesting discussion with my mother. She said, Oh darling, I am so gladI have now been told how many glasses of wine I can drink and it's safe to drive. I said, Mama, you cannot do it like that, because there are different percentage rates of alcohol, and glass sizes are different. If you want to be really safe, don't do it all. If you happen to be just down the road and have half a glass, that's fine, but don't go any further than that. That is the problem. Middle-aged people think that the limit equals two or three glasses of wine, a couple of pints or three whiskies, but do not realise that depending on the metabolism of the person, the percentage by volume of the alcohol and the size of the glass, one drink may put them over the limit. Really, one does not drink and drive.
	Although there is considerable merit in the proposal to reduce the permitted blood-alcohol level from 80 mg to 50 mg, there remains a big problem with people who are well over the limit, and we need to target them. The measures in the Bill are clearly sensible and will definitely help. However, we need to look again at the question of enforcement, as there is no substitute for traffic police officers who are able to stop people, make random searches and o ensure that offenders are kept off the roads.
	Much in the Bill is sensible and deserves our support, and I do not intend to touch on all those aspects. I have reservations about some of the details, such as the fees to be charged for recalled licences, but those can happily wait until Committee. I am more concerned about notable omissions from the Bill that I should like to be included. One partial omission relates to what can be done about uninsured drivers, who are a major danger on our roads. They cost a great deal in terms of money and lives, and create immense misery. That issue deserves to be tackled. Although clause 39 will help, the Greenaway report made several recommendations that would have been of great value had they been included in the Bill and would have received support from all over the House. I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Government, perhaps with the aid of the Select Committee on Transport, will introduce further measures to combat that particular evil.
	Another omissionI will not say that it is less important, but perhaps less severeis that of measures to make standard ECE 104 reflective tape for lorries mandatory. The Secretary of State said that he is unaware of the evidence on that, but I have compelling evidence that shows:
	The introduction of retro-reflective tape on HGVs in the USA reduced side and near impact collisions in 'dark-not-lighted' conditions by 41 per cent.
	The US Federal Highways Administration found that the ratio of savings to costs is such that every 100 invested . . . results in a reduced economic cost to society of 162.
	Research by The University of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late.
	I should like to raise that evidence in Committee, and I hope that the Government will at least consider it.
	Another example is the retro-fitting of bull bars. Many Members have commented on bull bars, which are completely unnecessary in this country. I can think of no circumstances, not even on a farmor, dare I say it, an estatewhere bull bars are a necessity. The retro-fitting of bull bars greatly increases the vehicle's danger in the case of impact with a pedestrian, and I encourage the Government to insert a clause to ban it.
	I have highlighted another problem, which although not grave is none the less important, to the Under-Secretary in correspondence. Several local authorities would like to be able to put up repeater signs in 30 mph limits, especially in rural areas where long distances may be travelled with some doubt about the limit. Local authorities of all hues and persuasions have asked me why they cannot erect repeater signs. According to the Under-Secretary's replies, they are not permitted to do so by law. Perhaps we could examine that.
	Perhaps the most important point is framing a charge of causing death by negligent driving. An interesting debate was held in Westminster Hall at the beginning of September in which the subject was raised. Like many hon. Members, I am fully aware of the difficulty of framing such legislation but I have heard pleas for it from so many hon. Members and so many of our constituents that I believe it is incumbent on us as legislators to frame and introduce such a law. Again, I hope that the Government will be inclined to consider that.
	I have a final suggestion. I doubt whether we can include it in the Bill but I believe that it would make a difference. Several speakers have said that if the accident rateperhaps it should be more properly called the incident rateapplied to any other industry or mode of transport, we would be up in arms. All other modes of transport have specific units that investigate accidents. We should consider establishing a dedicated road accident investigation unit so that we could understand centrally what caused each accident and learn and apply the lessons. That is probably too complicated to include in the Bill but I should like the Government at least to think about it.
	The Bill contains many sound provisions. As I said, we are happy to support it on Second Reading and we shall support it in Committee, where we should like to make some changes. I believe that many of the changes that I propose would find support from hon. Members in other parties. We all ultimately have an identical concern: we want fewer people killed and safer roads.

Alice Mahon: As joint chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am pleased about the Bill, which contains many welcome provisions. The Government's road safety strategy over the years has been progressive. It is worth repeating the Secretary of State's opening remark that we have one of the best road safety records in the world. However, it is essential to recognise that far more can be done.
	In 2003, the number of people killed and seriously injured fell to 37,215. Although I say fell, it remains a huge number, yet it is 22 per cent. below the 199498 average. Nevertheless, the figure represents human beings who have been seriously damaged or are no longer with us. The number of children killed or seriously injured fell to 4,100, which is 40 per cent. below the 199498 average. However, the figures still mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, that 10 people, some of them children, die every day on our roads. Imagine the outcry if that happened on trains or aeroplanes. Although we have a good record and the Government's strategy has been progressive, a big problem remains.
	I do not want to go into too much detail about drink-driving because many other hon. Members have spoken about that. There had been advances until recently, but we have now reached a plateau and we might even go in the other direction. We should remember that 500 people a year die because of drink driving. That is a shocking statistic. I am pleased that the Bill will give police new powers to take drink-driving evidence at the roadside. As the Secretary of State said, that closes a loophole and we are all pleased about that.
	I wish that the Government had gone a little further, however, and introduced measures to bring the UK into line with most of the rest of Europe on drink-drive limits. I disagree with the hon. Members who said that there is no need for a reduction in those limits. I agree with Brake, the road safety charity, which is arguing for the limits to be brought down to the same level as those in Sweden. That would be 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of bloodif we went for the European average, it would be 50 mgand I think that that would be an acceptable level. The most up-to-date law on this is the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which makes provision for a limit of 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood for train drivers and pilots, and I do not see the logic of its provisions not applying to road users. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter. Having said that, I congratulate them on some of the measures in the Bill.
	I would like briefly to refer to Brake again, because I have been involved in its campaign, Watch out, there's a kid about. In 2003, the number of deaths on foot of children aged between eight and 19the age range in which children use the roads on foot without being accompanied by an adultwent up by 26 per cent. to 110, compared with 87 the previous year. We also should note that, for children aged between five and 14, road deaths are the second biggest killer after cancer, so we should take this issue seriously. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich on this matter. Brake recommends speed limits of no higher than 20 mphand, where appropriate, 10 mpharound schools and in residential and built-up areas. I do not know why the Government do not accept that recommendation. A child on foot has a 95 per cent. chance of surviving a crash in which the car is travelling at 20 mph. That chance dwindles to almost none when the speed is increased to 40 mph.

David Atkinson: My constituents will welcome much that is proposed in the Bill. In Bournemouth, in 2003, more than 20 per cent. fewer road casualties occurred than in 2002. That is a considerable decline, which will undoubtedly be enhanced by some of the measures contained in the Bill. We have seen such declines previously, however, only to see them equally dramatically reversed a year or two later. The fact remains that the average number of serious and fatal casualties in Bournemouth has been the same over the past 10 years103 citizens killed or seriously injured on our roads every year. That means 100 partnerships and families temporarily or permanently deprived of a loved one because of carelessness or irresponsibility on our roads. I am therefore encouraged that all parties in the House are approaching this Bill in a constructive spirit of support.
	All of us have received representations from interested parties expressing concern at some of the measures in the Bill and proposing amendments to improve it. Such representations apply to the range of points and fines available through the fixed penalty system, on which I read the article by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in The Times yesterday with great interest. I must declare an interest because of my current six penalty points for speeding, in which I suspect that I am not alone in the House. I was sorry to read that one hon. Friend has recently been banned from drivingthere but for the grace of God . . .
	I agree with those who say that the current penalty point system needs to be revised. Of course, I do not object to the provision of safety cameras provided that they are placed at obvious and known places of accidents caused by speeding vehicles. We have been reassured by the Government that that is the case, and I hope that the Minister will repeat that in his wind-up today. I welcome the commitment given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that the next Government will audit the current provision of safety cameras to re-justify their location.
	There is no doubt that safety cameras influence most of us to keep our speed within the law. It is not so much the minimum fine of 60 but the awful prospect of being deprived of driving, and thus, in many cases, of livelihood, which concentrates the mind wonderfully. I suggest that most of us do not exceed the speed limit deliberately, and that we do so neither purposely nor excessively: for example, when temporary cameras are put in place on roads that are being repaired and that are not clearly indicated. That was the case when I incurred both my penalties. That is no excuse, but is unfortunate. I therefore agree with the proposed variable, graduated system of penalty points, which differentiates levels of speed. In addition, I suggest that the fixed minimum fine be raised from 60 to 100. That would be fairer, and also effective.
	I welcome the enforcement of legislation against uninsured drivers in the Bill. The Royal Automobile Club tells us that the current average penalty for driving without insurance is 150, which is far too lenient to discourage such extremely serious and irresponsible behaviour. The current cynical perception of many uninsured drivers is that there are not enough police patrolling our roads to apprehend them, and, of course, they will avoid on-street parking where they can. Better detection, as the Bill proposes, together with higher penalties and proper enforcement would change that perception and the practice; nor should foreign drivers be exempt.
	I agree completely with the provision of motorway rest areas, which will contribute greatly to the reduction in fatigue-related accidents, but surely we do not need to pilot the provision of such rest areas, because of their obvious effectiveness where they already exist. The experience of the French page motorways and trunk roads where such rest areas are frequent is sufficient to propose to the Highways Agency that it should proceed with their introduction on our roads forthwith.
	I welcome the proposed enforcement of measures against foreign drivers committing offences in the United Kingdom. Such measures should be the same throughout the European Union. While I will always support the right of a national parliament to introduce laws and standards to reflect and respond to the situation in our constituencies, the whole point of the European Community is to ensure and enforce minimum standards in every state. Such a policy need not be restrictedin the context of road safetyto the 25 European Union member states; it could apply to all 46 member states of the Council of Europe, perhaps through an appropriate convention. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister that a level playing field will be introduced throughout the EU.

Andrew Miller: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who made a strong case in respect of the circumstances affecting one family in his area. I was also pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he accepted that driving a car in such a way as to cause a death was very similar to killing a person with any weapon. He is the first person in his position to say that.
	Some years ago, I gave evidence to the Law Commission and argued that there should be an offence of causing death by driving. It is absurd that cases can be brought to court yet the question of the death caused is never exposed because of technicalities such as those that we have heard about. It is absurd that the structure of our law does not consider death to be at the centre of such cases. Although such a provision may not be appropriate for this Bill, I think that the House should look for an appropriate mechanism to adapt the law so that the principle that I have outlined can be addressed.
	There are exact parallels between manslaughter and causing death by driving. Investigating officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and, most importantly, the courts should be able to determine where a person's death fits in the spectrum of culpability. Courts would then be in an appropriate position to mete out an appropriate sentence. That is the way forward.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made an important point about drawing parallels between deaths on the road and deaths in other circumstances, and referred to examples of deaths caused in accidents involving aeroplanes and trains. Societyand in particular the mediaseems to adopt a different psychological attitude to rail or air tragedies from that which it takes to individual deaths on the road. It is important that the House should be seen to take a lead in the matter, and to say that the total number of deaths on our roads is far too high. The fact that those deaths are scattered around the country should not deter us from the sort of bold decisions that the public would expect us to take in response to a major incidentsuch as a plane falling from the skythat causes hundreds of deaths. We need to address both sets of circumstances in the same way.
	Various hon. Members have said that we need to raise public awareness about the scale of the carnage facing our society. The British record is good compared with that of some other countries, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we must do better. The same sentiment was expressed by the spokesmen for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.
	We need to find practical solutions, and the Bill contains some ways to make progress in that respect. Training is important. We should consider whether drivers should be more actively encouraged to raise their skill levelsfor example, by taking advantage of the help offered by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. That does not apply only to middle-age people, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) implied. It also applies to young people, and it is encouraging that in my own area there is a sprinkling of very young driversand the number is growing all the timewho want to take advantage of the high-quality extra tuition that the IAM provides. Perhaps we can take the opportunity, not necessarily by writing it into the Bill, but by engaging in dialogue with insurance companies, for example, to create massive benefits for drivers who undergo such extra training. People who do that are made aware of the risks that they face on the road.
	Because so many hon. Members want to speak, I shall keep the length of my remarks tight. A number of colleagues have spoken of overlaps with other Government Departments. I should like the Department for Transport to take a strong initiative that engages directly and openly all the other key Departments that can influence the debate. The Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the successor to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Department of Health are all important players. We need a joined-up approach to the problems facing us.
	There are some aspects of the Bill that cause me concern. I have serious reservations not about the principle, but about the way in which the Bill deals with variable graduated points. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and I find it difficult to see why we should harmonise downwards. I can see the merits of graduation, but I believe that we should start at a higher base point. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who called for a reduction in the drink-drive limit. Real benefits would accrue from that. However, I do not disagree with the analysis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is the extreme cases that cause problems, but we must set standards and enforce them rigidly.
	Finally, I shall deal with technology issues. I am a great fan of technology, from such simple devices as speed cameras to enormously powerful technology such as the new advanced number plate recognition tools. Under no circumstances should we allow a driver to use more sophisticated technology to get round such technology. Clearly, that should be an offence. I hope that when we deal with that part of the Bill in Committee, we will look at the technical issues and set standards. We should not try to be technology-specific, as that would be dangerous, but we should set standards that embody the principle that driver aids should not include devices that enable a driver to do ridiculous things on the road that increase the risk of death and serious injury.
	The Bill is a very good one, although there are some weaknesses. I hope that in Committee we can achieve unanimity to show the public that we take such matters seriously. The deaths of 3,500 people, such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), every year are largely avoidable if we get the structure right.

John Randall: I, too, welcome the Bill's provisions but, like other speakers, I want to tell the Minister that the Government should not have the mindset that the measure is set in stone. They should listen to the members of the Standing Committee. As we have already heard, there are some good ideas in the Bill, but there are also some gaps and I hope that the Government genuinely use the opportunities offered in Committee and on Report further to improve it.
	I want to talk briefly about two families who were affected by fatalities. David Burrows, the son of my constituent Keith Burrows, was killed tragically only a couple of hundred yards from my home, before I   became a Member of Parliament. Ever since, Mr. Burrows has worked tirelessly for road safety, and became a local councillor so that he could put road safety at the heart of local civic life. There is still a problem with that stretch of road, however. Sadly, there have been more accidents and last year there was another fatality.
	One of the problems is that we seem to move so slowly when dealing with these things. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) mentioned repeater signs. There is a 30-mile limit on the stretch of road where the accidents took place, but as it is a dual carriageway no one really keeps to the limit. Over the past seven years, since I have been a Member, I have raised the problem periodically and although I can understand the Government's response, there must be some way of telling people clearly that there is a speed limit on that road and that it must be adhered to. There is a strong case for speed cameras in the area. All the local people, even those who complain when they are caught by speed cameras, would have no hesitation in saying that cameras would prevent fatalities.
	The second family are the constituents of the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), but I have met them due to the problems they share with my constituents. George and Julietta Galli-Atkinson's daughter, Olivia, was killed tragically when a car mounted the pavement where she was standing. They have instituted annual Olivia awards to recognise all aspects of the work of traffic police officersfrom those who counsel the bereaved to those who are out on the streets. I pay tribute to all the parents and families who have suffered traumatic loss and to those who work so hard for them.
	A common theme, to which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) referred, is the feeling that there is a lack of appropriate offences and that sentences sometimes do not reflect the gravity of the offence. I am not saying that we should impose minimum sentences; we cannot legislate for every eventuality, but the courts must be able to recognise the gravity of offences and if that needs a change in the law, the Bill offers the opportunity to introduce it and to bring in a new offence.
	As the Secretary of State said, the answer is not just legislation; it is very much about education, and in that regard I want to mention a couple of the things that really irritate me when I am driving. I am sure that lots of the things I do irritate other people, but I want to get these off my chest. I do not know whether we can legislate; indeed, some things are already covered by legislation. It is one thing to introduce laws, but we should also ensure that existing laws are observedto echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and others. No matter what technology is introduced, there is no substitute for police officers.
	I abhor tail-gating, especially by the cabs of heavy-goods vehicles that have released their loads. The drivers are on their way home and travel at high speeds along motorways close behind other vehicles. That is incredibly dangerous and it seems to be a common practice.
	Without upsetting cyclists too much, I would echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). Increasingly, I see cyclistsyoung childrenout at night without lights switched on, and we must imagine what it would be like for people if they hit those cyclists and the trauma that it would cause them and, obviously, the victims themselves.
	I am sure that other hon. Members must see children sitting in the front seats of carsthey should not even be therewithout wearing seat belts. I see lots of people not wearing seat belts, despite the fact that the legislation has existed for goodness knows how long. I see children climbing over from the front to the back while the cars are moving. Every day, I see people not only using mobile phones while driving, but drinking coffee and reading maps or even newspapers while doing so. All I would say is that, although such legislation is welcomeI hope that improvements can be madewe must do everything to continue to educate people about the real problems of motoring.

Ian Lucas: In view of the shortness of time, I will restrict my comments to two issues. We have heard a wide consensus indeed in the House this afternoon. I greatly welcome that and hope that it is continued throughout our consideration of this very good Bill, which I support enthusiastically. Like many of my colleagues, my misgivings about the Bill are that it does not go far enough and are not about what it contains.
	While listening to the debate from the Back Bench today, I have been reflecting on the importance of road safety casesa point that has been made already. I was formerly a solicitor in a small market town in Shropshire. During the relatively short time that I worked thereabout eight yearsfour young people were killed in different road traffic accidents. Although I did some criminal law at about the same time, no other deaths of young people ever came across my desk during my work there. That gives some idea of impact that road safety issues have on our constituents. We have heard today, with great eloquence in a well-argued speech, from my hon. Friendmy good friendthe Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) about the impact that deaths can have on all our communities.
	I want to talk briefly about the graduated points system. I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he lost me in his arguments this afternoon in putting the case for reducing the number of penalty points from three to two. We all know that speeding drivers are more dangerous than drivers who do not speed. We all know that the faster people drive, the more dangerous they are. In that context, I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes sense to reduce the number of penalty points imposed for a speeding offence from three to two. I have grave concerns about that. I have no difficulty with the concept of a graduated points system. If clause 16 was amended to refer to a range of three to six points, I am sure that that would carry widespread support throughout the House.
	My second concern relates to an omission from the Bill. This is a road safety Bill and road traffic offences, particularly those that cause serious injury or death, are very important matters indeed in our constituencies. Our constituents find it completely frustrating that no offence can be brought before the courts that reflects the gravity of the death of an individual, when someone who is at fault causes that death while driving a vehicle. In short, our constituents cannot understand why there is no offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving.
	We fail as legislators if we do not address that concern. John Halliday has been investigating that lacuna in the law since July 2003. The Home Office, to whom he will report in due course, has been giving assurances to Members of Parliament and to members of the Transport Committee, on which I serve, that the issue will come to the House and be addressed, but we are still waiting for that. The Bill gives us the appropriate opportunity to address the huge gap in the law.
	One of the cases with which I dealt when I was a solicitor in Oswestry involved a 19-year-old motorist who was travelling down the A5, a road that my hon. Friend the Minister knows well. Three passengers in the vehicle that he was driving were killed in a road traffic accident. For a year afterwards, the case proceeded through the courts, based on an allegation of causing death by dangerous driving. I represented the driver and at no stage was there sufficient evidence to justify such an allegation. However, I think that the effect of three deaths, and the importance of those deaths to the families concerned, caused the prosecuting authorities to decide to proceed with the allegation.
	Ultimately, a year on, that case was thrown out in the Crown court. As a result, the families of the three people who were killed felt badly let down by the criminal justice system. Equally, the individual who was acquitted felt let down because he had been awaiting trial for 12 months and did not consider that the allegation was ever justified. An offence of causing death by negligent driving would have allowed the case to be dealt with quickly to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. There would have been an element of closure for the families and even for the defendant, who was devastated by the impact of the accident.
	Every hon. Member has said that they believe that that offence is justified. It is incumbent on us as legislators to act now, to wait no longer and to ensure that the offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving is available to our courts so that bereaved families can have justice.

David Kidney: I declare my non-pecuniary interest in that I co-chair the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. The approach of PACTS is strictly non-party political. I want to praise successive Governments and Parliaments for keeping the politics out of road safety for decades. The great gain from that has been to our society as a whole, with a huge reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads over that time.
	However, it is valid to make the point that last year, for the first time in a number of years, the number of fatalities in the statistics for those who were killed or seriously injured went up instead of down. We should not read too much into one year alone. Longer term, the trend in killed and seriously injured is still clearly downward, but as we have heard so movingly so many times, every loss of life on the roads is a tragedy. So I want to concentrate on ways to reduce the fatalities on our roads.
	I very much support calls for a wider range of offences and tougher sentences for killing by driving, as that would meet the public desire for justice and provide an opportunity to introduce further deterrents against the careless use of dangerous vehicles on our roads. I want to focus on preventive measures but, because of the limited time left for Members who wish to speak, I shall ditch most of them and concentrate almost entirely on drink-driving. However, I urge all parliamentarians to have regard to the report by the advisory group on motorcycling, given the huge increase in motorcycle deaths last year. I urge all employers to have regard to the guidance from the Health and Safety Executive on work-related driving. I alert the world in general to the huge gains from technological solutions, including intelligent speed adaptation, which can reduce fatalities further in future.
	To keep my contribution short, I shall concentrate on drink-driving. Ever since laws on drink-driving were introduced, the legal limit has been 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. That limit has served us well, and is robust and well-understood. However, because of changes in the law, the practices of modern society and the retailing and marketing of alcoholic drinks, it is time to reduce the limit from 80 to 50 mg. After significant falls, there was a plateau in the number of deaths in the 1990s. As a couple of Members have pointed out, the number of drink-driving deaths has been creeping up. Since 1998, when it was 460, it has risen by more than 20 per cent., and last year it was 560. In 2003, 19,000 casualties were caused by alcohol-related crashes. The Government consulted on whether to change the limit in 1998, and in its consultation document the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions predicted that, as a result of reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg, 50 lives a year would be saved. Using rough statistics, 97 per cent. of drivers either have no alcohol at all in their system or less than 50 mg. Those drivers are not anywhere near the present limit and most of them would not change their behaviour if it were reduced to 50 mg, as they are within that limit. Those people cause hardly any of the deaths on our roads, and their behaviour would be unlikely to change in future.
	As some Members have said, about 2 per cent. of drivers have no regard at all for the legal limit and far exceed it. They are often caught two, two and a half or three times over the limit. I concede that changing the limit from 80 to 50 mg will not make much difference to their behaviour. Our priority for them must remain enforcement, tough sentences and, to some extent, education and publicity. The final 1 per cent. of drivers are close to the present legal limit, and attempt to stay within the law. They are just under, just over or at 80 mg, and are responsible for a significant number of deaths on our roads. One assumes that they would adjust their behaviour in accordance with the new limit. They may not be within it, but they would try to keep to it, and would probably be a little under, about the right level or a little bit over. The latest assessment based on the 2003 statistics on alcohol-related deaths on our roads was made by Professor Richard Allsop of the Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, who estimated that we would save 65 lives a year if we reduced the limit from 80 to 50 mg, and if 1 per cent. of drivers changed their behaviour to the extent that I described. That gain is worth having. The target is continually to reduce casualties, and it is reasonable to expect a contribution through the reduction of fatalities caused by drink-driving, but such a contribution is not currently being made. In addition to enforcement and education, we must change the limit.

Mark Lazarowicz: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I support the Bill, which contains many good provisions. I want to concentrate on aspects of it on which we can build and I hope that the Government will take some points on board either in Committee or in other ways in future.
	First, I endorse the comments of many other hon. Members about the problem with the graduated penalty proposals. I am worried that the message conveyed by adopting proposals for lower penalties for lower speeding would undermine the Government's good work on road safety. It would convey a message that a little bit of speeding does not do any harm. That is a dangerous message and it would be a big mistake to send it. We should face the fact that the problem of speeding below 40 mph in a 30 mph zone is not that people receive many penalty points but that, too often, the law is not enforced.
	In many parts of the country, there is no genuinely effective enforcement until people drive at 38 or 39 mph. I do not suggest that we should pursue with the full vigour of the law someone who inadvertently creeps one or two mph beyond a 30 mph limit. However, we must have much more effective enforcement of existing speed limits below the 10 mph leeway, which appears to be allowed in many parts of the country. That approach is not consistent and I would be interested to hear today or on another occasion what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary believes he can do to try to ensure a more consistent approach to enforcement of speed limits throughout the UK.
	I endorse the comments made by many hon. Members on drink-driving limits. The arguments for reducing the level to 50 mg are convincing and I hope that the Government will consider them in Committee. I also endorse the view expressed by many hon. Members that, if we are to improve still further our relatively good road safety record, we need to change not only our legislation but public attitudes. The change in public attitudes can be brought about in a number of ways, and legislation will certainly play a part in that, as it will underline the message that we take seriously offences of this nature. We also need more public education, although a lot of good work has already been done in that regard. We need more public information, more road safety education of all sorts in schools, including basic education about street safety, cycle training and a wide range of other measures. We also need more driver education, and more work to be done by vehicle manufacturers.
	Above all, we as public figures need to send a consistent message that cutting the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads must have a higher priority in the decisions that we take about traffic and transport. I, too, welcome the clear message given by the Secretary of State today about the way in which we should regard people who use their vehicle to drive dangerously. He drew a parallel between such people and those who create a danger by using a gun or other weapon. That was a powerful message and I endorse what he said.
	We have heard today about the tragic cases that have affected many hon. Members; we all see such cases in our communities from time to time. It is also important, however, to send out the positive message that we can do things to make a difference at local level as well as at national level. In my own city of Edinburgh, the city council, the police and other agencies have worked together to make a real impact on reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the roads. Last year, for the first time since records began, some 75 years ago, not a single school-age child was killed on the roads in Lothian, the area that includes Edinburgh. That result was achieved by a road safety strategy involving a combination of engineering measures such as road humps, enforcement involving speed cameras, and education. This was not just a one-off strategy. Over the last 10 years, we have seen a reduction of 30 per cent. in the number of injuries on the roads. That consistent reduction has meant that we have had one of the highest reductions in accidents in the UK. It is time to learn from the example set by my city council, as well as by many other councils of different political colours in different parts of the country that have introduced measures to improve road safety in their communities.
	The use of speed cameras and other traffic calming measures of that nature results in howls of derision from certain sections of the community and the media. However, we have to underline the fact that none of usI am a driver myselfhas the right to break the speed limit. We must reject the spurious arguments about the Government attempting to raise revenue from cameras, because it diverts us from the fact that speed kills, and we do not need the carnage on the roads that still takes place despite our relatively good record compared with most other European countries.
	I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have said today that they will not vote against the Bill. This is an area in which we must try to achieve as much political consensus as possible. However, it is no use Conservative Front Benchers saying that they support the headline measures on road safety if, in the next breath, they come out with language that undermines the message being sent by those measures. I do not want to undermine the cross-party consensus that we have here today, but as we listened to the opening speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), we heard all the same old arguments and urban myths about speed cameras. We heard the idea slip through that the Conservatives, if they came to power, would abolish the safety camera partnerships, which have done more than anything to reduce deaths and injury by speeding. It is no good, at one level, supporting road safety, while undermining in practice, with the message that is sent out, the intent of legislation.
	I say this with some hesitation but it needs to be said: when the message is sent out by some leading Conservativesalthough there are some honourable exceptions in the Conservative partythat a little speeding is okay and that it does not really qualify to be in the same league as other criminal offences, that contributes to the overall climate in which speeding is okay, and contributes to the campaign in some quarters against speed cameras and against enforcing speed legislation. We hear that too often from the Conservative Benches, and it contributes to making the roads less safe, and ultimately results in people dying or being injured on our roads who would not otherwise have died or been injured.
	Conservative Front Benchers must recognise that when they undermine the message of strict enforcement of speed limits, they are acting irresponsibly and encouraging some drivers to drive in a way that leads to people being killed and injured unnecessarily. With not too much expectation of a change of heart today, I urge them to act a little more responsibly in this area, and not to take an approach that leads to more people losing their lives and being injured than would otherwise be the case.

Christopher Chope: This debate has been well attended, and the contributions have been fewer and shorter than would have been the case had the Second Reading not lost two hours and 50 minutes to the three statements and the urgent question, which was a point made very well by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Because of time constraints, I will not be able to respond to all the pertinent points that have been made. Unlike in most debates in the House, however, everyone who has spoken shares the same objective of improving road safety, and relatively small differences exist in relation to some of the means of achieving that objective.
	I shall start with one area in which there is unanimity about the need for enforcement. I must emphasise the way in which the Government have failed both their supporters in the House and Opposition Members who believe that we need more police enforcement of our road traffic laws. Road traffic law enforcement is not included in the core responsibilities of chief constables, a fact which was investigated by the Select Committee in its excellent report. All that has happened is that the Government have produced a rather lame response to the Select Committee report, and have today announced that they will now get serious about enforcement of road traffic law.
	Fortunately, only on 5 January, I received a much delayed answer to a question that I had put to the Home Secretary on how many road traffic police officers there were in 1996, and how many there are now. It was quite a straightforward question, but it received a holding answer on 13 December, no doubt while the Government worked out how they were going to respond. The answer is rather interesting, as it shows that in the past four years, 1,653 fewer police officers have been in front-line operational road policing, while the number of support staff has increased by 399, and an extra 400 have been involved in administrative supporta twentyfold increase. In 199697, this Government inherited 9,201 road traffic police officers, whereas now, according to the answer that I have received, there are only 6,276 operational traffic officersa reduction of between a quarter and 30 per cent. In the meantime, there has been an enormous increase in the number of operational support officers and organisational support administrative back-up staff.

Christopher Chope: I will not, because unfortunately our time is limited.
	The Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), said that the incidence of compliance with 30 mph limits was very smallthat there was 58 per cent. non-compliance. Speed limits must be worthy of respect, or they will be ignored. It is essential for us to have a sensible regime of speed limits, and sensible enforcement. That point has been made strongly by the Institute of Advanced Motorists, of which I am privileged to be a member. It has drawn attention to
	the increasing use of non-discretionary cameras in place of police officers who are able to able to apply discretion taking account of prevailing conditions. For example, the Government position on the motorway limit included the assertion that while at 70 mph drivers would regularly travel at 80 mph, if increased to 80 mph they would travel at 90 mph. This argumentation is clearly undermined if zero-tolerance cameras substitute police enforcement.
	The briefing paper continues by pointing out that
	speed limits are exactly that: limits. The IAM and other road safety organisations constantly remind drivers of this. They are the maximum speed where conditions allow and therefore, by definition, a lower speed must be appropriate where there are additional hazards e.g. traffic density, rain, fog, high pedestrian population etc . . . For their message to be credible it follows that the speed limit should be set as the maximum permitted speed where the road appears empty of moving hazards, the conditions dry and visibility clear.
	That is, I am afraid, far too infrequently the situation, which is why I am pleased to be able to tell the House this evening that the next Conservative Government, which will come in later this year, will conduct a review of speed limits on all English roads to ensure that posted speed limits are appropriate to the function and characteristics of the road. We will implement a consistent signposting policy across England to inform drivers, riders and passengers of these posted speed limits. That will have a major effect on the motoring public's confidence in the fairness of the system.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made a most important speech, and I certainly endorse what he said about the Streetwise safety centre, which I also had the privilege of visiting; it has achieved an enormous amount for road safety in our area. He admitted to having been the victim of the penalty points system, and of speed cameras imposed temporarily on roads under repair. I am afraid that concern about such cameras is often expressed in the postbag by people who, when travelling along a road whose normal speed limit has been replaced by a temporary limit, find that the signposting is inadequate. As a result, they are caught outin circumstances for which they find it very hard to accept responsibility.
	My hon. Friend also made a very important point about the many cyclists on our roads who ride without lights. The Government should do something to help those who ride with lights that flash or pulsate, or which consist of light-emitting diodes, because currently they are outside the law. The chief executive of the parliamentary advisory committee on transport safety admitted to me in a conversation yesterday that he had such lights on his bike. Strictly speaking, they are outside the law, and this Bill gives the Government an opportunity to bring such cyclists within the law, and then to bear down more heavily on those who ride with no lights at all.

Mark Todd: We have an opportunity in this short debate to reflect both on a local south Derbyshire success story and on evidence of the success of a Government and local authority programme in my area which, I am sure, is reflected to some extent in other parts of the country. That success has been based on a partnership between Derbyshire county council, supported by central Government fundingI shall expand on that subject later in my speechthe local, voluntary and professional management of the community transport service in Swadlincote, South Derbyshire district council and a number of parish councils in south Derbyshire, which have been involved in developing local transport solutions for their individual communities.
	First, I shall provide a few raw facts. In 1997, Community Transport (Swadlincote) which had been in existence for some eight years by that time, carried 17,583 passengers in five vehicles. In 2004, the same service carried 72,683 passengers in 21 vehicles. All hon. Members will accept that that is a huge increase in passenger usage and in the scale and capacity of community transport in south Derbyshire. Community transport was operated over nearly 100,000 miles during 2004.
	In 1997, the service operated out of a Nissen hut. Thanks to a lottery award early in the life of this Government, however, it now operates out of a modern, purpose-built garage, which has, however, become increasingly hard pressed for space as the service has developed. The garage has also provided a base for a number of innovative schemes to offer transport services to rural areas, and I shall touch on several of those schemes in my speech.
	One such scheme, which I shall mention now, was prompted by the introduction of the new deal and my identification, along with the county council, of the fact that it was difficult for unemployed people in rural areas to obtain transport to get work or even to go to interviews and take up opportunities. A bid was put in to support new deal transport for people in rural areas, and the service was run for a number of years to support people with those needs.
	Although I shall mainly concentrate on Community Transport (Swadlincote) I also want to acknowledge the role played by other voluntary sector transport schemes in the area. In particular, I want to refer to the social car scheme operated through the South Derbyshire Council for Voluntary Service, which completed nearly 2,000 runs in 2004 to those who need specific and personal transport, which is often required for medical reasons. Some 31 volunteers have given freely of their time, energy and vehicles to provide that important and personal service in the past year, and this is an opportunity to thank them and those who organised that service for their valuable contribution to community needs in south Derbyshire.
	Government help has been available on several levels. First, they have supported two rural bus challenge bids, which have directly helped Community Transport (Swadlincote). Since 1999, that help has secured the growth of the service until 2007the latest scheme has just been authorised for a further three years. In the first phase of the rural bus challenge, 30,000 additional passenger journeys occurred. People would not otherwise have been able to undertake those journeys, and they would have had to rely on their own private transport or lifts from other people.
	The latest award245,000 over a three-year periodwill consolidate the development of rural services and link to a specific award in the north-west of south Derbyshire, which is the most rural and remote part of the district, serving the areas around the villages of Hilton, Etwall and Church Broughton. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the parish councils for those areas for their vision and practical work, assisted by others. I did a mailing to several parish councils in my area suggesting that they address local transport needs. I particularly congratulate the three that I mentioned and one or two others in the area. Findern, the village in south Derbyshire where I live, has also been active in taking up the opportunity to look closely at local transport requirements and then working with community transport on solutions.
	Much of the area involved had virtually non-existent services. The bus service in Church Broughton was charmingly described as a market-day service. The traditional view of what was provided in rural areas was a bus service that went only once a week and was related to a market somewhere else in another town. That very rudimentary access to public transport has now been supplemented dramatically by access to dial-a-ride services and group services for individuals and groups in those communities.
	The Government have sharply increased the funds available to the county council for more general support for public transport in Derbyshire. This is an opportunity to congratulate a Labour county council that was, with substantial justice, classed as excellent in the last three comprehensive performance assessments. It has used the additional funding extremely well. Part of it has gone towards supplementing additional scheduled services in the area, for example by deepening the coverage for weekends and evenings, but a very large   proportion134,000 last yearhas gone to   Community Transport (Swadlincote) to support dial-a-bus and group travel services throughout the district.

Mark Todd: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbouring Member for that contribution. He is absolutely right. We have both campaigned actively for the restoration of passenger services through the southern part of south Derbyshire. Such a scheme would include a new station at Castle Gresley It is regrettable that a combination of narrowness at central Government level and occasional lack of vision from some of the councils involvedalthough not Derbyshire county council and my own district council of South Derbyshirehas meant that little progress has been made on the project, but it would undoubtedly improve access to the main rail transport network for many of my constituents.
	The second initiative that deserves credit is that that the Government now rebate fuel duty to community transport operators. To give the Minister an example of how valuable that is to a community transport service, in south Derbyshire in the past year it has saved 18,000 that could be applied to service development. It is an extremely valuable supplementary source of revenue that was not available before that change implemented by this Government.
	The Government have made more flexible the rules relating to the operation of Community Transport. We all recognise that it would be entirely inappropriate to support through public funds direct competition with private sector bus providers. However, too narrow a restriction on the development of services can be unhelpful. When I spoke to Community Transport (Swadlincote) before speaking here this evening, I was told that although legitimate restrictions remain, it is now much more a case of defining instances where services may not be provided than of following the much narrower path of very precisely restricted services that could be provided by Community Transport.
	I welcome that change of tone and balance in the regulatory framework in which Community Transport operates. Much of the development of group travel services, which has grown rapidly in south Derbyshire, providing, for example, door-to-door services that deliver frail passengers to shopping centres in nearby towns, reflects that more liberal approach of dealing with Community Transport in a more permissive environment than previously existed.
	I would personally welcome a further examination of the restrictions on Community Transport, especially the way in which it could work with employers to develop sustainable travel packages for employees. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reflect on that. There is much to commend the way in which a small, flexible operator could work with employers to develop packages to bring employees to work. I can remember working in a company that operated a bus service for its employees around the town where most of them lived. That has gone out of fashion. However, there is now an opportunity to reflect on what a neat and nimble-footed operator such as Community Transport (Swadlincote) could do with local employers to improve the sustainability of transport options for employees in the area.
	It is worth adding that the massive development of service and the growth in passenger numbers has been achieved while maintaining excellent relations with private operators, both private scheduled operators and those who offer coach services in the area. People get on well together, understand the differences between their businesses and I have come across no complaints about that. Indeed, offers of co-operation have sometimes been made and much appreciated.
	Is there any cloud on that undoubted local success? I should like the Under-Secretary to give some thought to a couple of matters. The first point is mainly a matter for local initiative but the Government could examine ways in which to facilitate it. I am proud to say that south Derbyshire is now generally an area of relative prosperity. south Derbyshire district has the highest average income in Derbyshire. Employment is high and rising. That means that recruiting volunteers, who play an important role in supplementing the activities of Community Transport's paid employees, can be tough and rewarding paid staff sufficiently to retain them can also be difficult. Opportunities for other employment abound in the area.
	The county council has recognised the problem and is trying to develop a package of promotions that will attract people to the important roles of, for example, assisting disabled users, which need to be filled. It is normally helpful to have a volunteer to supplement the work of the driver and others to help people to get in and out of vehicles. It is hard to get people to fulfil those critical functions.
	The second point relates directly to central Government responsibilities. While the range of services that Community Transport (Swadlincote) offers is secure in the medium termI have mentioned 2007for the rural services in particular, much has depended on the success of bids to central Government. As with any project based on that initial fundingI also have a mini Sure Start scheme in Derbyshire that suffers from the same problemthe start of the process is pump primed, but a way of mainstreaming the funding support must be found so that the service can continue to develop and be retained.
	I urge the Under-Secretary to initiate discussions on how to structure a transfer of funding responsibility over time, subject to quality tests on the services supported. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that Community Transport (Swadlincote) is doing an absolutely fantastic job in serving a large number of people who are disadvantaged, either because they live in a remote rural location or by their disabilities or other requirements, and are therefore less able to use public transport.
	Community transport in south Derbyshire has achieved huge growth across a wide range of services, and it has started to demonstrate that there is a huge, unmet demand for public transport in the area. It deserves greater certainty in its planning, and if the Government take the steps that I have described, they will be able to offer it that increased security, which will allow it to build on the tremendous successes that it has already achieved.

Charlotte Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) not only on securing this debate but on his role in promoting community transport in his constituency. I know that he has been a champion of this transport service.
	Community and voluntary transport have a key role to play across the whole country, in both urban and rural areas. I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), but I fear that his proposal would require an excessive subsidy to make it viable. We are at present focusing on bringing community transport schemes into being under existing viable projects, as he knows because he was present at our debate earlier today. I hope, however, that the kind of scheme to which he referred will become viable in future.
	The challenges might vary, but the need for transport for those who are socially excluded for reasons of income, gender, race, disability or geographical isolation is always there. The community and voluntary transport sector has been at the forefront in helping to meet those people's needs. Indeed, the services that it offers have developed and evolved over many years, particularly over the past decade, with enormous changes to their scale, scope and range, and to the professionalism of those providing them.
	The breadth of the community transport sector's activities is impressive, and it is perhaps too easy to lose sight of the sheer scale of the operation. The Community Transport Association, which represents the majority of schemes across the country, estimates that there are some 5,000 schemes in the UK, which between them run about 60,000 minibuses. They do so with the help of about 250,000 volunteers and 10,000 full-time paid drivers. I take on board the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire about the difficulty of recruiting volunteers; many organisations face that problem. Together, the schemes deliver some 5 million trips for almost 2 million people with mobility problems. Any transport provider would be proud of that record. It is perhaps all the more laudable when we consider that this activity is taking place in the voluntary sector. However, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, funding for the sector is not straightforward, and I fully appreciate the difficulties to which uncertainty over future funding and the complexities of funding applications can sometimes give rise. We shall certainly consider those issues.
	This brings me to the issues surrounding rural transport services. Rural travel patterns have changed markedly over the past 30 years. We have seen a significant growth in car ownership in rural areas. Public transport had become a marginal form of transport, and people's journeys became longer as the number of local shops and services declined due to the consolidation of essential services such as health care, post offices and banks. For people without access to a car, that meant increasing difficulties in accessing employment opportunities and essential services.
	This lack of accessibility is a significant cause of social exclusion in rural areas, and we recognise the need to improve the transport infrastructure and to enhance rural accessibility. The measures that we are taking are having a positive impact. New and enhanced bus services are being delivered across all rural counties, improving the links between market towns and halting the decline in bus use in rural areas.
	Over the past five years, we have more than doubled local authority funding for transport projects. For those authorities with extensive rural communities, considerable funding is being directed at rural areas. An important ingredient of achieving rural renewal is good-quality rural bus services. We have specifically targeted more resources to improve rural bus services. More than 50 million will be spent this financial year alone on the rural bus subsidy grant. More than 2,200 new and enhanced bus services are now being funded from this grant across England, on which some 29 million passenger journeys are being made per year. We have succeeded in giving a much-needed boost to transport links for many rural communities. Our Future for Transport White Paper announced the continuation of the rural bus subsidy grant beyond April 2006.
	Additional resources for conventional bus services are not the only answer in rural areas. Solutions need to be tailored to local circumstances. We want better targeting of resources by local authorities to meet accessibility needs, greater promotion of rural transport services and a more joined-up approach that links public transport and less conventional services

David Taylor: The Minister refers to a more joined-up approach, and she was kind enough to refer to my intervention at the beginning of her speech. Does not she acknowledge that there is a possibility of joining up and integrating bus and rail services in some parts of the country? Will she review with her officials the costings for the national forest line running between Leicester and Burton, through North-West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire, because the passenger figures that produce the prime income are excessively bleak and were drawn up at a time when the two districts involved were much less developed, in all sorts of senses, than they are now?

Charlotte Atkins: That is absolutely right. We should not forget the bicycle in this respect, as there are tax incentives for employers to provide bicycles to employees at good rates, to ensure that they encourage employees to come to work by bicycle rather than provide them with a car parking space. There are many ways in which employers can encourage sustainable transport policies.
	One of the most significant initiatives has been the extension to many community transport operators of the bus service operators grant. Since its introduction in May 2002, more than 800 community transport operators in England have become eligible, and I understand that all the Derbyshire schemes are now claiming. This is a continuing grant providing the organisations concerned with significant help in meeting their operating costs.
	With regard to the interests of rural communities in particular, since 1998 the Department has provided significant levels of funding to improve the provision of bus services in rural areas. The rural bus challenge scheme, which has funded 300 projects, has been successful in making possible the development of a wide range of innovative schemes. It has helped many successful projects to become established and to reach the stage of being strong candidates for mainstream funding from local authorities or other sources. It has demonstrated the potential, in particular, of flexibly routed and demand-responsive services in the meeting of local transport needs.More specifically, the Department provided nearly 500,000 for the 2003 rural bus challenge competition for four different rural transport schemes in South Derbyshire involving community transport providers. While we have helped to stimulate many of those initiatives, I acknowledge the hard work and dedication that community groups have invested in improving the quality of life for the many people who rely on them.
	Of course we recognise that the funding regimes I have outlined do not provide a long-term funding base for schemes, but that was never our intention, and we made it clear from the outset of the ruraland urbanbus challenge that it was never intended to be a source of permanent revenue support. The main aim was to show the scope for innovation and new approaches, and to get projects under way that would then become part of the mainstream in terms of funding. While I recognise the pressures on local authority resources for revenue support of buses, I should point out that overall Government grant has increased for this year by 7.3 per cent., and by 30 per cent. since 1997.
	Some authorities clearly have an exceptional record of working in close and supportive partnership with community transport. Derbyshire is one such authority: its record is commendable and long standing. Others, however, have not yet recognised the value of working in partnership. Many are continuing to provide funding one year at a time. That gives no basis for planning or development.
	I believe that it is also important to engage community transport providers in the local transport plan process at a strategic level, in recognition of their contribution to public transport delivery. Again, I acknowledge that Derbyshire is at the forefront of that approach. The LTP guidance to local authorities emphasises the need to encourage active involvement by that sector, but too many community and voluntary transport providers continue to be treated as an optional extra in the transport mix. Those issues too are addressed in the accessibility planning guidance.
	Where do we go from here in terms of funding? We all recognise that community and voluntary transport schemes are vital to the mix of transport provision. The Government want to do all that they can to ensure that such schemes can thrive. As we have heard today, the funding issue is a key factor in determining how the sector can continue and develop effectively. It is important that for those involved to be able to share their experiences, learn from others and develop their funding policies with the broadest possible understanding of the sector. To that end, we have commissioned the Community Transport Association to produce a good practice guide to funding. The association is due to deliver the guide early this year, and we intend to make it widely available to all involved. Moreover, the funding issue will no doubt be considered in the context of a research project that we have commissioned to look at the role of community transport in reducing social exclusion. One of the aims of that work is to identify and evaluate the funding regimes available to the sector.
	As part of our commitment to the compact with the voluntary sector, we have now completed the working in partnership with the voluntary and community sector strategy and action plan. That document outlines how the Department has met, and will continue to meet, the aims of the compact. Through continued liaison with the sector, we will obtain views on the Government's transport agenda and on barriers that voluntary organisations face in providing a full and sustainable service. A community liaison manager has been in post for six months to deal with that.
	Our role is to provide a policy, regulatory and financial framework at national level so that the transport system works for everyone. That is a challenging task, but one that we are committed to completing.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.